Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Darwin's still a scientific hotshot (Nobel laureate James D. Watson on Darwin and his influence)
LA Times Calendar Live.com ^ | September 18, 2005 | James D. Watson

Posted on 09/19/2005 3:24:26 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored

Edited on 09/19/2005 3:36:21 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next last
To: bkepley
The problem is though that scientists tend to just ignore things that don't jibe with their prejudices or are embarrasing to their prejudices.

That's an outright falsehood. All science is subject to peer review. All data is tested with skepticism, even if it would appear to support the scientist's original theses. This is why the evolution hoaxes have all been uncovered by scientists.

If creationists had such a high burden for their information, sites like "Answers in Genesis" would have run out of things to publish years ago.

151 posted on 09/19/2005 11:51:36 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: bkepley
"I wouldn't put it in the same league with a law of physics or else you could make some definite predictions about a population of eels (say) and what they will be in 2 million years. I think it's more along the lines of a law of economics. Do you call laws of economics laws of physics?"

I was trying to get the poster I was responding to to realize that the laws of physics are never broken and are not similar to legal laws in any way.

Evolution can be considered a law of nature in that it invariably affects all organisms on a continuing basis. It is not a human construct. The ToE, which is a human construct, is not a law, nor has anyone stated such.

152 posted on 09/19/2005 11:55:40 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: SeaLion

S'OK. I was posting for the lurkers.


153 posted on 09/19/2005 11:58:12 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
I believe both reason and faith can co-exist. The world would be an empty and sterile place without their mutual presence.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
154 posted on 09/19/2005 12:04:04 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: highball
If creationists had such a high burden for their information, sites like "Answers in Genesis" would have run out of things to publish years ago.

They'd still have some funny cartoon strips.

155 posted on 09/19/2005 12:08:47 PM PDT by Quark2005 (Where's the science?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
Darwin is still the greatest scientist of all time. He provided us with a powerful, unifying explanation for the changes that occur in nature. No one has been able to come up with anything better. Its a classic example of how the scientific method has been able to advance our understanding of the world around us. There is of course a place for religion but its important to remember the context: science seeks to explain what can be verified through direct observation and experimentation - e.g, the scientific method; religion seeks to explain what we can't rationally explain, like the mystery of death and why the world exists as it does - in other words, the ultimate origin of existence itself. When we understand the distinction, we realize that Darwin wasn't threatening to overturn our ties to God - its just that nature can now be appreciated on her own terms and we're all the more richer for it knowing that nature minds her own business without any reference to us at all.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
156 posted on 09/19/2005 12:19:16 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
Evolution is The Theory Of Evolution There are no "laws" just theories. Theories that haven't ever been proven, if they were, then they'd be laws, and there would be no debate of the matter. Also these same theories, with all our knowledge and technology, have never been duplicated.

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries
1-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2-The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3-A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
4-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
5- An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

157 posted on 09/19/2005 12:27:28 PM PDT by mountn man (Everyone brings joy into a room. Some when they enter. Others when they leave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bkepley

"Well Watson chose to bring up the subject of DNA in an article on Darwin. Now we can't ask how it evolved? Also doesn't DNA's ability to replicate itself depend on RNA and how did these two co-evolve?"

Of course you can ask how DNA "evolved". But DNA wasn't identified as the carrier of genetic information until long after Darwin. All DNA work supports Evolution.

Strictly speaking, at least in procaryotes, DNA replication does not involve dependence on RNA, unless you consider that all cell processes are RNA dependent in a very indirect manner (in this case it is indirect since the DNA polymerase is a protein and involves rRNA, tRNA and mRNA to produce the enzyme, but the actual replication of DNA can be done in a test tube with only DNA polymerase and a DNA template and the appropriate nucleotides in the right form).


158 posted on 09/19/2005 12:30:41 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: mountn man

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries
1-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2-The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3-A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
4-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
5- An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

It's good that you put in bold face the definition of 'theory' that is least relevant to the theory of evolution. Sometimes people get confused about such things.

159 posted on 09/19/2005 12:36:42 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Another candidate for The List-O-Links, in the "THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM" section.

You might consider a book on this subject. You might be able to get it published.

160 posted on 09/19/2005 12:41:27 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
You might consider a book on this subject ["THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM"]. You might be able to get it published.

Nah. Who would pay for a book when you can visit creationist websites for free?

161 posted on 09/19/2005 12:54:40 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Please explain your position of least relavent.


162 posted on 09/19/2005 1:03:47 PM PDT by mountn man (Everyone brings joy into a room. Some when they enter. Others when they leave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
The ToE, which is a human construct, is not a law, nor has anyone stated such.

You have to be careful here. Not everyone is careful about terminology. The best you can say is that sloppy writing does not alter reality.

163 posted on 09/19/2005 1:15:56 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: mountn man
"Evolution is The Theory Of Evolution There are no "laws" just theories. Theories that haven't ever been proven, if they were, then they'd be laws, and there would be no debate of the matter. Also these same theories, with all our knowledge and technology, have never been duplicated.

There is more wrong with this post than is imaginable.

Evolution is not a theory, it is an observable fact. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is our explanation of how evolution works. Theories do not graduate to laws. A theory is a group of unfalsified hypotheses. Laws are descriptions of consistent phenomena. Theories have no need to be duplicated, the tests run to falsify (or verify, depending on your viewpoint) the hypotheses a theory is made of have to be repeatable.

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries
1-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

This is the correct definition, not that silly common usage thing you posted.

Are you sure you're not a Loki Troll?

164 posted on 09/19/2005 1:57:53 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: mountn man
"Evolution is The Theory Of Evolution There are no "laws" just theories. Theories that haven't ever been proven, if they were, then they'd be laws, and there would be no debate of the matter. Also these same theories, with all our knowledge and technology, have never been duplicated.

There is more wrong with this post than is imaginable.

Evolution is not a theory, it is an observable fact. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is our explanation of how evolution works. Theories do not graduate to laws. A theory is a group of unfalsified hypotheses. Laws are descriptions of consistent phenomena. Theories have no need to be duplicated, the tests run to falsify (or verify, depending on your viewpoint) the hypotheses a theory is made of have to be repeatable.

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries
1-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

This is the correct definition, not that silly common usage thing you posted.

Are you sure you're not a Loki Troll?

165 posted on 09/19/2005 1:58:34 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"You have to be careful here. Not everyone is careful about terminology. The best you can say is that sloppy writing does not alter reality.

You are quite correct. I should have said - I haven't noticed anyone calling the ToE a law in this thread.

I am surprised that Watson conflates law and theory in his story as if they were different degrees of the same thing. It did appear that he was trying to remove the ToE from the hole of the common usage definition of theory, but I think he went about it the wrong way.

166 posted on 09/19/2005 2:09:23 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; PatrickHenry
Your interlocutor wrote:

"People tend to replace a lack of potency with accumulation of things like degrees which "empower" them "independently"." [emphasis added]

I could be wrong, but I think Gen. Ripper has just disembarked the mothership....

167 posted on 09/19/2005 2:33:05 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
I could be wrong, but I think Gen. Ripper has just disembarked the mothership....

LOL! Precious bodily fluids placemarker.

168 posted on 09/19/2005 3:00:09 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
There is more wrong with this post than is imaginable.

Such as?????

Evolution is not a theory, it is an observable fact.

Really??? Prove it. Just because you state it does not make it so. So back it up.

The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is our explanation of how evolution works.

Your "explanation" unless backed by irrefutable fact, is your accepted explanation ie. theory.

ex·plain ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-spln)
v. ex·plained, ex·plain·ing, ex·plains v. tr.
1-To make plain or comprehensible.
2-To define; expound: We explained our plan to the committee.
3-To offer reasons for or a cause of; justify: explain an error. To offer reasons for the actions, beliefs, or remarks of (oneself).

Theories do not graduate to laws. A theory is a group of unfalsified hypotheses.

the·o·ry (th-r, thr) n.
1-A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. 2-Abstract reasoning; speculation.

I see assumptions but NO FACTS

Laws are descriptions of consistent phenomena. Theories have no need to be duplicated, the tests run to falsify (or verify, depending on your viewpoint) the hypotheses a theory is made of have to be repeatable.

WHAT?????
Your trying to equate theory with law. Theory is the root of thesis

thesis

n 1: an unproved statement put forward as a premise in an argument 2: a treatise advancing a new point of view resulting from research; usually a requirement for an advanced academic degree

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries 1-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

This is the correct definition, not that silly common usage thing you posted.

My, such pomposity. Are you French? Or Al Gore or John Kerry?

Are you sure you're not a Loki Troll?

Your question implies that someone who doesn't agree with your presuppositions , must just be trying to goad you into outraged responses. I'm not trying to goad you into outraged responses. I thoroughly disagree with the theory of evolution, as obviously many others on this thread do. With the pomposity you've exhibited, you're the one who seems to be trying to instigate others.

169 posted on 09/19/2005 3:06:24 PM PDT by mountn man (Everyone brings joy into a room. Some when they enter. Others when they leave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

And yet there is no evidence of simpler forms of this very complex molecule, even in such primitive creatures as viruses?

Not bloody likely.


170 posted on 09/19/2005 3:27:33 PM PDT by Ninian Dryhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: mountn man
"Please explain your position of least relavent."


He meant that,

"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

is not what is meant by scientific theories. The definition that does relate to a scientific theory is,

" 1-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

That is a scientific theory, at least a very brief description of one. It is not something that has been *proved*; only mathematical theorems can be proved, and only because all of the premises are axiomatic. A=A cannot be anything else. Other theories, like Newton's laws of gravity, cannot be proved. In fact, they are not correct in certain circumstances. That is why Einstein devised his theory of relativity, which has also not been proved. It is the best theory we have with the evidence we have.

The same with Evolution. Saying that because it is an *unproven theory* only means that it is just like every other scientific theory. If you want to make an argument against it, you have to provide better evidence.

I hope that helped.
171 posted on 09/19/2005 3:35:28 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Ninian Dryhope

"And yet there is no evidence of simpler forms of this very complex molecule, even in such primitive creatures as viruses? "

Viruses were not around until long after the first cells evolved. They couldn't survive without cells or bacteria to attack.


172 posted on 09/19/2005 3:39:45 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

I'm not sure that mountn man is willing to engage in rational debate. He seems to think that he can make evolution false -- or at least "uncertain" -- by playing semantic games rather than addressing reality.


173 posted on 09/19/2005 3:53:45 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll
If the guy says it is scientific, why is he romantic about Darwin and don't show facts and logic?

I see this observation every once in a while, and the childishness of it never ceases to amaze me.

Scientific analysis requires one to be objective, yes, but not inhuman.

The notion that it does is just ludicrous.

174 posted on 09/19/2005 4:14:59 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
One cannot ignore at its base evolution rejects the Creator, thus they are 'gods'.

Utterly and completely false, in *two* different ways in a single setence.

Just once I wish you anti-evolution zealots would try to *understand* the topic and its adherents before you go spouting off your wild fantasies about it.

175 posted on 09/19/2005 4:16:50 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ninian Dryhope
And just where in the world did the complicated code come from? Did this complex molecule just pop into existence all by itself?

No, it arose in stages, and the evidence clearly indicates this. But then, you'd have to know quite a bit of actual science in order to be able to understand the biochemical evidence, which leaves msot anti-evolutionists *way* out of their depth.

176 posted on 09/19/2005 4:18:51 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
From a reader review of 'Evolution vs. Creationism : An Introduction', off of Amazon.com.


"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. "
177 posted on 09/19/2005 4:31:13 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
"I believe both reason and faith can co-exist. The world would be an empty and sterile place without their mutual presence."

I would not have faith without reason and I could not reason and ignore faith. The natural and the supernatural co-exist. I agree with the empty but not sure about sterile without their mutual presence. There is a negative for every positive and that would include the natural and the supernatural sphere.

Now evolution deals specifically with the natural world as though the supernatural does not exist which is at the core of my disagreement. To reason flesh evolved would by reason require the supernatural evolves as well.
178 posted on 09/19/2005 4:51:13 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: js1138

"Of all the things I've read on these threads, this is the funniest. Darwin causes human inequality and inequality causes welfare. The Onion couldn't do better."


I was having fun. I am pleased you got a laugh.


179 posted on 09/19/2005 4:55:01 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

LOL


180 posted on 09/19/2005 4:55:53 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

"Evolution is a law (with several components) that is as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the laws of motion or Avogadro's law. Evolution is a fact, disputed only by those who choose to ignore the evidence, put their common sense on hold and believe instead that unchanging knowledge and wisdom can be reached only by revelation."

"Dunno who, if anyone, said evolution is a law. It's not a law. There is a scientific theory of evolution. "


The above is what the author of this article stated.

I was having fun with the concept of evolution law.


181 posted on 09/19/2005 5:00:17 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

"Utterly and completely false, in *two* different ways in a single setence.

Just once I wish you anti-evolution zealots would try to *understand* the topic and its adherents before you go spouting off your wild fantasies about it."

Welll Ich, I know what Genesis says, and that theory is in complete opposition with what Genesis says. So you tell me were God fits into your world of evolution.


182 posted on 09/19/2005 5:04:38 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

"Now evolution deals specifically with the natural world as though the supernatural does not exist which is at the core of my disagreement."

Name ONE scientific theory that does otherwise. Just one.


183 posted on 09/19/2005 5:05:05 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
"Name ONE scientific theory that does otherwise. Just one."

Do you seeeeeee gravity???? I am told the supernatural is ignored cause it is not visible. So maybe the scientific community is just a bit biased in their theory production plants.
184 posted on 09/19/2005 5:17:30 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
" Do you seeeeeee gravity????"

No, i do *see* the affects of it though. It is an indirect observation.

"I am told the supernatural is ignored cause it is not visible."

You were misinformed. It is ignored because it is not testable or observable, even indirectly.

"So maybe the scientific community is just a bit biased in their theory production plants."

Nope.

Now, tell me, what scientific theory works with supernatural causes?
185 posted on 09/19/2005 5:22:32 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Now, tell me, what scientific theory works with supernatural causes?

Intelligent Design (but it's supposed to be a secret).

186 posted on 09/19/2005 5:30:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

"Intelligent Design (but it's supposed to be a secret)."

I said SCIENTIFIC theory :)


187 posted on 09/19/2005 5:36:26 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

A literal reading of Genesis has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of a creator. The only thing evolution threatens is your pride.

For thousands of years Christians and Jews took the rising and setting of the sun literally. In this era that seems comical. No one would take it literally.

What you are having trouble with is distinguishing between history and parable.


188 posted on 09/19/2005 5:40:07 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: js1138

"A literal reading of Genesis has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of a creator. The only thing evolution threatens is your pride. "

Really, how literally do you want to go into what Genesis actually says? My pride????

"For thousands of years Christians and Jews took the rising and setting of the sun literally. In this era that seems comical. No one would take it literally. "

I think some followed the moon as well.

"What you are having trouble with is distinguishing between history and parable."

?????


189 posted on 09/19/2005 5:44:45 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: mountn man
"There is more wrong with this post than is imaginable.

"Such as?????

See below.

"Evolution is not a theory, it is an observable fact.

"Really??? Prove it. Just because you state it does not make it so. So back it up.

Evolution is the variation of allele frequencies within a population. This is observed with every birth. Any good biology text will affirm this.

"The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is our explanation of how evolution works.

"Your "explanation" unless backed by irrefutable fact, is your accepted explanation ie. theory.

Whether or not you accept the ToE, your definition and conflation of 'law' and 'theory' is simply wrong.

"Theories do not graduate to laws. A theory is a group of unfalsified hypotheses.

"I see assumptions but NO FACTS

You see assumptions? Where? If you doubt my definition that a theory is made up of a number of hypotheses, look up the word 'hypothesis'. A theory is the collection of hypotheses that survive testing and falsifying.

"Laws are descriptions of consistent phenomena. Theories have no need to be duplicated, the tests run to falsify (or verify, depending on your viewpoint) the hypotheses a theory is made of have to be repeatable.

"WHAT?????

"Your trying to equate theory with law. Theory is the root of thesis

No, you're mistaking a theory for a law. You might want to get your definitions straight before going on.

Definition of Thesis

Definition of Hypothesis

Definition of Theory

Wikipedia definition of Theory

There are two uses of the word theory; a supposition which is not backed by observation is known as a conjecture, and if backed by observation it is a hypothesis. Most theory evolves from hypotheses, but the reverse is not true: many hypotheses turn out to be false and so do not evolve into theory.

A theory is different from a theorem. The former is a model of physical events and cannot be proved from basic axioms. The latter is a statement of mathematical fact which logically follows from a set of axioms. A theory is also different from a physical law in that the former is a model of reality whereas the latter is a statement of what has been observed.

Theories can become accepted if they are able to make correct predictions and avoid incorrect ones. Theories which are simpler, and more mathematically elegant, tend to be accepted over theories which are complex. Theories are more likely to be accepted if they connect a wide range of phenomena. The process of accepting theories, or of extending existing theory, is part of the scientific method.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.

"This is the correct definition, not that silly common usage thing you posted.

"My, such pomposity. Are you French? Or Al Gore or John Kerry?

There are a number of definitions for the word 'theory', one or more used in the sciences and one used in common language. You specifically chose the common usage definition, in an attempt to belittle the ToE, because it represents a strawman version of the scientific definition. The ToE is a result of a number of scientific fields, all of which use the scientific definition of the word.

"Are you sure you're not a Loki Troll?

"Your question implies that someone who doesn't agree with your presuppositions , must just be trying to goad you into outraged responses. I'm not trying to goad you into outraged responses. I thoroughly disagree with the theory of evolution, as obviously many others on this thread do. With the pomposity you've exhibited, you're the one who seems to be trying to instigate others.

No, I question you motives because of the egregious definitional mistakes you've made. If you can not get your definitions correct, the probability you have any correct information about science is extremely low, IMHO.

If you have any specific problems with the ToE, put them forward and we'll discuss it. Playing semantic games gets us nowhere.

190 posted on 09/19/2005 6:20:04 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: mountn man
The Theory of Evolution
191 posted on 09/19/2005 6:31:01 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: mountn man
Please explain your position of least relavent [sic].

If I theorize that you had grits and toast for breakfast yesterday, that's a 'conjecture based on limited information or knowledge'.

On the other hand, the fact of evolution is one of the deeply studied and widely confirmed phenomena in the realm of empirical science. Tens of thousands of researchers are involved in extending our understanding of its workings, and have been for 150 years. Hence, were you to say that the theory of evolution is "an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture", you would be misusing the term 'theory' in an especially egregious way.

I theorize that you wouldn't want to do that.

192 posted on 09/19/2005 11:35:59 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Now evolution deals specifically with the natural world as though the supernatural does not exist which is at the core of my disagreement.

Science observes what is observable. It doesn't affirm or deny the supernatural -- that's outside its scope.

I know that my dog will die if I don't feed it. I do not have to know who created it, or whether or not it has a consciousness or a soul, to back up the vailidity of this observation.

193 posted on 09/20/2005 12:09:46 AM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

I do not believe that I, personally, require a creation myth, nor am I interested in how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, nor even on the point.

Darwin was a near contemporary of Diderot. (Or Rousseau.)

Just a bunch of guys who dreamed of being the new Isaac Newton but without all that hard thinking.

No measurement, no science. Numbers, not arm waving.


194 posted on 09/20/2005 1:47:09 AM PDT by Iris7 ("Let me go to the house of the Father." Last words of His Holiness John Paul II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
Darwin was a near contemporary of Diderot. (Or Rousseau.)

The floruit of the two Frenchmen was about 100 years before that of Darwin:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
Denis Diderot (1713-1784)
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this:

Just a bunch of guys who dreamed of being the new Isaac Newton but without all that hard thinking.

No measurement, no science. Numbers, not arm waving.

I wouldn't lump Darwin in with Diderot and Rousseau (the Frenchmen were literati, Darwin was a scientist). Also, not every subject is amenable to mathematization to the extent that, say, physics has been.

195 posted on 09/20/2005 2:10:56 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
"Science observes what is observable. It doesn't affirm or deny the supernatural -- that's outside its scope. "

One must consider the mystical magical primordial soup bowl in light of your claim. Evolution does not ignore the supernatural, the theory is based upon some sort of mystical illusion of some nonexistent source.


"I know that my dog will die if I don't feed it. I do not have to know who created it, or whether or not it has a consciousness or a soul, to back up the vailidity of this observation."

No response required as you already have confirmed you have no ability or knowledge.
196 posted on 09/20/2005 4:59:56 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Scientific analysis requires one to be objective, yes, but not inhuman.
The notion that it does is just ludicrous.



It is not ludicrous. Politics and "humane" feelings should stay out of science. This is the difference between Darwin and the cult of Darwinism. But I guess only Darwinist can stay human, not the religious?

All the moron posters who attacked me accusing me of ignoring science or laws have not read what I wrote. I agree with the science but not with the blackmailing cult which aims to destroy the prescientists.


197 posted on 09/20/2005 5:10:33 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"One must consider the mystical magical primordial soup bowl in light of your claim. Evolution does not ignore the supernatural, the theory is based upon some sort of mystical illusion of some nonexistent source."

As you doubtless have been told a gazillion times, abiogenesis is not the TOE. And abiogenesis does not use supernatural causes, that would be ID. Not knowing everything that took place is not the same as calling on Santa Claus to fill in the gaps. Your ignorance is getting sadder and sadder, especially when we have continually provided you with info to alleviate it.

" No response required as you already have confirmed you have no ability or knowledge."

Ironic post of the century. You DO provide some laughs. :)
198 posted on 09/20/2005 5:16:50 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

Go for it ...


199 posted on 09/20/2005 5:23:43 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Yes so you keep claiming, all things have a beginning and no matter how high you all build your wall of separation of "abiogenesis" and evolution one cannot ignore the connection.

Keep trying though.
200 posted on 09/20/2005 6:46:30 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson